Gujarat Court September 1992 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Jaykrishna Harivallabhdas (Huf) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-07-1992
Reported in: (1993)109CTR(Guj)480; [1993]202ITR175(Guj)
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. At the instance of the applicant-assessee, the following two questions are referred for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench. The referred questions are as under : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee did not convert the land as its stock-in-trade of the business of purchase and sale of immovable properties on and from June 1, 1975, and contributed the land as stock-in-trade to the partnership on June 16, 1975 (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was a transfer of the capital asset by the assessee under section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when it became a partner in the firm from June 16, 1975, and, therefore, became liable to pay capital gains under section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. It will be profitable to have a look at the introductory facts. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. The main sou...
Dr. Thakorlal V. Patel Vs. Lt. Col. Syed Badruddin
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-07-1992
Reported in: (1993)1GLR28
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. A few vital and significant points have surfaced in this First Appeal, arising out of contractual relationship between the parties and alleged breach of the contract, and, therefore, submissions are made and heard at a Marathon length.2. In this First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('Code' for short), the original plaintiff-appellant has assailed the judgment and decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 46 of 1974 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baroda, on 28th November, 1979.3. A short resume of the facts leading to the rise of the present appeal, may be stated, at the out set so as to appreciate the merits of the appeal and the cross-objections and challenge against them.4. The present appellant is the original plaintiff and the present respondent is the original defendant, who are hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff' and 'the defendant' for convenience sake.5. The plaintiff instituted the above suit for the recovery of an amount of...
Gujarat Pollution Control Board, Through N.M. Shukla Vs. Yogiraj Pulp ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-07-1992
Reported in: (1993)1GLR484
A.N. Divecha, J.1. The original complainant has preferred this revisional application for enactment of the sentence awarded to respondents Nos. 1 to 5 herein by the order passed by the learned 3rd Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Amreli on 29th June, 1987 in Criminal Case No. 686 of 1986. Thereby, the learned trial Magistrate convicted respondents Nos. 1 to 5 herein of the offence punishable under Section 44 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 ('the Act' for brief) and sentenced each of them to fine of Rs. 150 and respondents Nos. 2 to 5 herein to imprisonment till the rising of the Court.2. The facts giving rise to this revisional application are not many and not much in dispute. The complainant appears to have filed his complaint charging respondents Nos. 1 to 5 herein with the offence punishable under Section 44 of the Act read with Sections 25 and 26 thereof. That complaint was filed in the Court of the 3rd Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Amreli. I...
State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanlal Jaganath and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-04-1992
Reported in: (1993)1GLR382
A.N. Divecha, J. 1. The right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar reported in : 1979CriLJ1036 . Does the concept of speedy trial mean disposal of Criminal cases without giving an opportunity to the prosecution to bring the guilt home to the accused In the name of speedy trial for the accused, should the Courts suffer from such disposal mania as would occasion dispensation with, instead of dispensation of, justice This is what appears to have happened in the case represented by this appeal. The judgment and order of acquittal, rather the order of acquittal, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) of Court No. 3 at Surat on 13th April, 1983 in Summary Case No. 2084 of 1983 is under challenge in this appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat after obtaining the necessary leave for the purpose ...
Bhanubhai V. Khunti Vs. P.S. Sharma and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-03-1992
Reported in: (1993)1GLR265
A.N. Divecha, J.1. Identical questions of law and fact arise in both these revisional applications directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate of Court No. 8 at Ahmedabad as affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Court No. 7 at Ahmedabad. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties appearing before me, I have thought it fit to hear both these revisional applications together and to dispose them of by this common judgment of mine.2. The facts giving rise to both these revisional applications are not many and not much in dispute. The petitioner herein was working at the relevant time as the Quality Control Officer in one Abad Dairy in Ahmedabad. On 26th May, 1981 the original complainant went to the Abad Dairy and he found that the packing and distribution of milk in milk pouches was being carried on. He found the petitioner present in the Abad Dairy at the relevant time. A person was summoned t...
Anant Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-02-1992
Reported in: (1993)109CTR(Guj)231; [1994]206ITR582(Guj)
S.D. Shah, J. 1. The Income-tax Tribunal was referred the following question of law for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : Common questions for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 : '(1) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the question whether the assessee carried on business activities in the assessment year 1968-69 had to be determined in the assessment order for that year only (2) If the answer to the above question is in the negative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to reagitate this point in a subsequent year (3) If the answer to question No. 2 is in the negative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in concluding that the assessee discontinued the business in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1968-69 and not 1967-68 ?' Question relevant only for the assessment year 1972...
Mangeram Daulatram Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-02-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Guj160
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. In this appeal, under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code ('Code' for short), the appellant/original plaintiff has questioned the dismissal of Civil Suit No. 385 of 1983, passed by the City Civil Court Judge, Ahmedabad, on 23-7-1992.2. Some material facts giving rise to the, present appeal needs narration. M/s. Daulatram Mangilal was allotted and installed a telephone No. 442340, in Ahmedabad, at the residence of the appellant and the appellant-Mangeram Daulatram Agarwal, is the sole proprietor, of the said concern. The appellant, who is the original plaintiff, initiated the suit in the trial Court for a declaration that the respondent/original defendants are not entitled to the amounts shown in the telephone bills in respect of the said telephone number for different periods. The said telephone came to be disconnected on the ground of non-payment of telephone bills. The plaintiff is also having two telephone connections, at Calcutta, bearing No. 357400 and 357401, ...
Chairman, Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. Musabhai Sadikbhai ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Sep-01-1992
Reported in: (1993)1GLR281
A.N. Divecha, J.1. All these appeals are directed against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Sabarkantha at Himatnagar on 30th November, 1982 in Summary Cases Nos. 195 of 1982 to 206 of 1982. Identical questions of fact and law arise in all these appeals. By consent of the learned Advocates for the parties appearing before me, I have heard all of them together and I have thought it fit to dispose of all these appeals by this common judgment of mine.2. The facts giving rise to these appeals are not many and not much in dispute. The appellant is the original complainant. He is the Chairman of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (the 'Committee' for convenience) at Bhiloda. That Committee is for the market area comprising of the Taluka of Bhiloda as well as that of Vijaynagar. The declaration of the intention of establishing a market area for these two Talukas was made by one notification issued under Section 5 of the Gujarat Agricultural ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›